|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
I was surprised
to see, in the September 1998 issue of the Journal of American History,
that Oliviero Bergamini has decided to elect Theodore Roosevelt to membership
in what TR called the "Ananias Club," a group whose members were liars
(see Acts 5:1–6). In a review of Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan:
The Making of a President by Peggy and Harold Samuels, Oliviero
Bergamini says that Roosevelt "lied about his role in the battle" of
July 1, 1898, near Santiago, Cuba, by claiming to have led the charge
at San Juan Hill. Bergamini informs us that TR and the Rough Riders
actually charged up "thinly defended" Kettle Hill. Bergamini also asserts
that "Roosevelt saw the Spanish-American War as the big chance of his
life to rise to ultimate national prominence."
To set the record
straight, Theodore Roosevelt did not lie about his war record, or about
anything else for that matter. TR actually led two charges on July 1,
1898, one up Kettle Hill and a second against the San Juan Heights as
part of the assault on San Juan Hill. San Juan Hill is part of the ridge
called San Juan Heights, and the entire fight on July 1 is often referred
to simply as the "Battle of San Juan Hill." Bergamini rather than Roosevelt
seems confused about the local geography.
In calling Kettle Hill "thinly defended," reviewer Bergamini faithfully follows the characterization of "relatively undefended" used twice by Peggy and Harold Samuels. If this description is even relatively accurate, then how do we account for the high casualty rate of the Rough Riders in the battle? Figures differ in various sources, but the casualty rate of the Rough Riders (1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment) on July 1, 1898, was at least 15%. The overall American casualty rate was 10%, and the Rough Rider casualty rate was higher than all but two of the 30 U.S. regiments that fought that day.
As for TR's quest
for "ultimate national prominence," wouldn't that have been more likely
attained by staying in his highly visible post in the Navy Department?
His friends thought so at the time. But TR believed that since he had
loudly advocated war with Spain, the honorable and unhypocritical course
was to enlist. To say that TR enlisted to advance his career is to read
history backwards. There would have been no career had TR been killed
on Kettle Hill or San Juan Heights, as Bergamini himself points out.
Bergamini seems to have been led astray in his thinking by Peggy and Harold Samuels, whose book Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan he gives a rave review. But the Samuelses have produced a hatchet job that is hardly worth the attention of professional historians. By twisting facts, employing questionable sources, manipulating adjectives, and constantly questioning Roosevelt's motives, the Samuelses, for whatever reasons, try to belittle TR. They even repeat allegations drawn from Annie Riley Hale's Rooseveltian Fact and Fable (1908 and subsequent editions), an amusing historical artifact that no historian has ever taken seriously.
As for Roosevelt's war record, the U.S. House of Representatives on October 8, 1998, and the Senate on October 21 passed a bill "to authorize and request the President to award the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Theodore Roosevelt for his gallant and heroic actions in the attack on San Juan Heights, Cuba, during the Spanish-American War." The president signed the bill on November 12, 1998. The bill (HR 2263) was introduced in the House by a Democrat and in the Senate by a Republican; the House bill had over 160 co-sponsors; and the bill passed both houses of Congress by voice vote without a single dissent.
|
John A. Gable
|
|
Theodore Roosevelt Association
|
|
Oyster Bay, New York
|
To the Editor:
Honestly, I am a little surprised by Professor Gable's reaction. The role of Theodore Roosevelt at San Juan has already been questioned many times, and TR's inclination for self-mythification is something historians know well by now. Professor Serge Ricard, of the University of Paris, wrote an essay on this subject, entitled "L'histoire mythifiée," that I think is rather conclusive.
. . . |
